One amazing GMO is Golden Rice, modified so that it produces biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, which rice does not naturally produce. Since rice is the main staple food in many Asian countries, this means that conditions such as blindness are more common, since it can be brought on by a vitamin A deficiency. With the use of Golden Rice, the blindness rates in these countries have fallen.
There are seeds for these and they grow in 6-10 inches of soil. Meaning you can grow them in a pot. They aren't as sweet and tend to be more fibrous so they hold up better in stews.
One of my favorite GMO stories is about a little arctic fish that evolved naturally to have it's own anti-freeze that prevents its blood from freezing. And if you were to mix a bit of that fish blood with with low fat or fat free ice cream, before you freeze it, it will be smoother, more creamy, with much less ice crystals that would cause an unpleasant texture. If you remember a product that was sold in the 1970's, called "ice milk" then you remember just how unpleasant healthy frozen dairy treats used to be, before this little fish's blood came along. But there a couple of problems with using the fish's blood. Harvesting the fish is expensive, and you would need a lot of them to obtain enough of the blood to sustain the ice cream industry, so many that it would likely make that fish quickly go extinct. But GMOs to the rescue! By inserting some of the fish genes in yeast, they were able to grow it cheaply and abundantly, so much that they can not only support the ice cream industry and keep the healthier, lower fat treats affordable, there's enough that they can develop other products that can save lives.... One of those products in development is a de-icer that can be used on airplanes, so that there's less chance of potentially fatal accidents occurring when planes take off in winter. And it can be used on electrical power lines reducing the chances of power outages and accidental electrocution from downed power lines, caused by the excessive weight of accumulated winter ice and snow. And that also means that linemen won't have to risk their lives climbing up slippery poles and braving high winds during storms, trying to restore power. And families that rely on electric heat won't freeze to death because of a power outage And people that rely on life saving electrical medical equipment won't die during a storm. And it could be used to preserve life saving donor organs for a longer period of time, without damage, leading to more people waiting for an organ will have a better chance of getting one. All from some GMO yeast. And the arctic fish won't go extinct!
I know it's a bit of a cliché to say this, but - UGH, how do you not have more subs?! You definitely deserve at least a million. Thank you for the great content!
+SomePeculiarities I appreciate that :) I suppose it's because I don't pimp myself out or advertise much. I put it on a few small subreddits and just see what happens. More people sharing it will help me grow. And I'd be ecstatic at just like... 100k subs. No need for a million :)
KnowingBetter idk, I think it might take off once you reach a thousand, since that seems to have been happening a lot lately with smaller channels with consistent content
You cross-reference a lot of other publishers, but do they do the same for you, as often? A cross-reference is how I got here, but it took me 5 years to find that reference to your channel. Anyway. Great work! Thanks for the content!
I remember specifically watching a History channel documentary about GEOs/GMOs and was surprised that so many people were against them. I remember one example they used were the potatoes that were engineered to be naturally resistant to one or two major pests for the crop and so they didn't have to use pesticides on them at all, which made the food safer and cheaper. McDonalds cut a deal to start using them for their fries and people were outraged, even though the new potatoes were cheaper and safer!
It's because, they just tell you small amounts of information, leaving huge gaps, and not giving you an intuitive understanding of what they are teaching you.
It'a all atrophied. Generational inheritance of shallow culture in schools, and teacher qualifications have dropped. I'm shocked how many times I have seen a kid post under a good GMO video how their teachers hate GMOs and tell them GMO science is evil. How the hell can any good come from that?
I'd say it's due to the intermingling with corporations, as he put it in his video. The moment any big innovation is revealed by a corporation or researchers paid by a corporation... it incites distrust. And rightfully so, I'd say. Corporations are usually out for the money, not for the betterment of mankind. Studies can be and have been influenced or undermined (see VW emission scandal). Plus there's a lack of trust in regulations and enforcement... which is also not completely uncalled for, for the same reasons. (Not just direct corruption, but for example as far as I remember the European-American trade agreement tried to undermine European regulations and enforcement for US products.) There are just too many examples, when scepticism was appropriate and there are too few (publicly known?) trustworthy authorities to guide or soothe that scepticism.
It's because a) the government runs the schools, and b) the people who run the government no longer care about the common good, because c) PC politics have elevated subjective concepts over objective ones -- diversity values over right and wrong, for example. So for every conservative "creationism over evolution" or "global warming isn't real", there's a liberal "fetuses aren't human" or "dude born with a penis is actually female". Or in this case, "GMOs are always bad because scary corporations are scary". Schools aren't interested in teaching real science, or real history, or real anything else that has an ideological component to it. They just want to reflect the values of whomever the local school board votes for.
Or maybe it's because of people like you who equate anti global warming with trans activism and thereby muddy the water. One of those things is a scientific field... the other a social discussion. We can define society ourselves, but we can't decide what hurts the ecologic balance of the planet. And I hope I don't have to explain the VERY FUCKIN' HUGE difference in consequences for the survival of mankind, if one of those two movements gets their will respectively.
Vermont just passed a law requiring all GMOs to be labeled. People are now measurably more comfortable with gmo foods according to new studies. Labeling GMOs is good for their public image. Hiding info makes people suspicious.
Dalym Or they have no choice since organic is more expensive? I'm all for information, but the people who say this just want to boycott GMO's. Interesting study though... Will look into it.
Labeling gmo is dishonest though. As every food would need a label. Even those not engineered. it also implies a difference from "normal" food that doesn't exist. It promotes a fear that is unjustified. It would be like slapping a label on apples that said "Not grown with shit" it implies that any crops that use fertilizer have something wrong with them.
"Every food would need a label" No, not every kind of food is a GMO. Being selectively bred, like bananas or carrots, does not make it a GMO. The genes are literally modified, but the term GMO has a very specific use in this context. And labels are already very dishonest. If you see the word "fresh" on something, don't believe it. Fresh means something entirely different in the marketing world.
PSA: for anyone wanting to use the "TRIGGERED" bar and sound effect, follow these steps: Step 1: Start Audacity (or your preferred recording software) Step 2: Blow into a microphone on a single recording track Step 3: Turn up said track until ridiculous clipping occurs Step 4: TURN DOWN THE MASTER VOLUME c'mon people you can clip a track and turn down the master so it doesn't blow out someone's ear drums, it's not hard to do. (great vidoes though dude. you've found a big fan here. but please. turn down the master on that "triggered" sound)
great way of putting it into simple terms, but yeah it's possible to clip a sound and preserve the distortion without needing to have it cranked up so loud.
The funniest thing for me is when people tell me they are MSG sensitive and then put tons of soy sauce on their food. I normally don't say anything because I don't like to be "that guy", but on the inside I am dying.
Yeah, it's literally just an amino acid and salt. In fact, the combination is found naturally in meat, fermented foods, tomatoes, etc. But no one bats an eye at eating those. I thing the name is just scary to people. Which sounds friendlier: monosodium glutamate or miso paste?
Naturally occurring glutamate and monosodium glutamate are 2 completely different ingredients. I am not just sensitive to MSG, but am deathly allergic to it (anaphylaxis). However, at the same time, I am capable of eating natural glutamate without any reaction. So please, stop comparing the 2. There is a huge difference.
One interesting fact that I was told by a food scientist (so second hand, it may be a generalization) was that a good amount of non-organic food meets most requirements for organic they just haven't paid for the label since that takes years and costs a lot.
I don't have an issue with GMO's at all. However, I'm not so sure I like a single company having as much control as they do over something so important. (That and the genetic diversity question, but if we can stop smallpox surely we can stop a new plant disease)
+Aero That was a claim that the federal government was not elected. Are you American? If you’re European I can understand the complaint but that would only be fixable if you were willing to join a singular European state. If you’re from elsewhere please inform me. If you’re from America, then there is no point in voting if that claim is true, is there? Do you vote?
@@curlyfryactual @Dashiell Gillingham I believe he's referring to the federal reserve, and not the federal government. While it's true that the fed is 'unelected' that's somewhat disingenuous because they're appointed, and therefor elected indirectly. In the same way betsy devos was 'unelected' but she got her position because of an election.
Lack of genetic diversity is the big fear with bananas. Covering farms with "really good" clones has immediate benefit, but ignores what really makes populations resilient to disease.
klanza dumas yes, in order for crops and to be labeled organic, they have to be certified, but that still doesn’t means it’s not a scam. For most certifications, only 95% or the food product has to be organic to be labeled “organic”. Even so, they still really do everything conventional farms do, sometimes to a worse extent. They still use fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, you name it, it just has to be “organic” and “natural”, that doesn’t mean it has to be good for the environment. Organic crops usually have a higher price margin as well, because if companies know consumers will buy it because it’s organic, it doesn’t matter the cost. Certified or not, it’s still a scam, because it’s not what people believe it to be.
Organic farming is best for the environment. Your scam argument is a strawman . Overpopulation and the GMO agenda is a scam . The scientists are paid off to shill and lie about the results not being harmful to humans or the environment .
klanza dumas how do you know organic farming is better? Because it’s “natural”? Artificial gets a bad wrap. Just because something is natural, doesn’t make it good. Just because something is artificial doesn’t make it bad. The artificial science community is under harsh scrutiny 100% of the time because if they don’t produce something that is better for the environment and the people, that product doesn’t sell, because consumers just won’t buy it. The organic industry, on the other hand, can get away with nearly anything, because if people believe it’s natural, it’s good. Get your facts from reliable online source, not your organic Facebook page
The problem with GM foods is not with the technology itself, but in the way it's sometimes applied. For example, there are the "suicide seeds" that produce sterile grains when will not germinate. In pre industrial countries, corporations have lobbied to outlaw the time honored agricultural practice of seed banks. Another problem is with the round-up resistant grains. Farmers are encouraged to use more roundup to increase yield and as a result the herbicide is finding it way into the food supply
But that's not being opposed to GMOs that's being opposed to bad practices within the field. That's like being against using tractors because farmers have no right to repair, or some are not emission controlled.
@@gabemerritt3139 maybe this is pedantry but they said the only issue (related to them) they have, not that they’re Against anything. I would say your examples are perfectly fine issues to have with modern tractors and their manufacturers, but holding that opinion certainly doesn’t make one “anti-tractor”.
The issue with GMO's isn't they're evil in and of themselves: it's because GMO's make it easier to do dangerous practices: monocropping, excessive pesticide and herbicide use that makes pests resistant and exposes consumers to toxins. Monocropping makes it more likely that a blight or pest can quickly adapt and destroy an entire crop, or a shift and weather would kill off most of the food supply. Another issue is fertilizer causes environmental damage: and current farming practices use excessive amounts and are contributing to global warming. The crops could be GM'd to be nitrogen fixing, and dramaticlly cut fertilizer usage. I think the future for farming will be AI operated robots to replace more herbicides (robotic weeding), with high diversity (AI harvesting that can sort), with GMO crops that are more designed to self fertilize as apposed to be "round up ready." But Monsanto does not have an insensitive to bring about that future: they sell pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
I've seen a very, very early test of a robotic weeder, it was really cool (and solar powered because hell, you're growing crops so there's gotta be at least some light, right?).
All of those things you mentioned are currently necessary to feed the world’s population. As for the future, why is one company responsible for bringing it about? If Monsanto (or now Bayer) doesn’t do it, their competition will. In the meantime, GMOs are how we feed the world, and I see no reason not to expand poorer countries’ consumption to the same kind of vegetables, fruits, and mears rich countries consume through the use of GMOs.
@@ZeteticPhilosopher I have no clue what your point was or how it related to my statements. I said the issue with GMOs isn't that they exist, it's in how they're used. And then I said they're uses to encourage some damn dangerous practices. High pesticide and herbicide use, and monocroping. Poor farmers in third world countries cannot afford to buy thousands gallons of round up, and tons of petroleum based fertilizers every year. And planting only one crop means a failure of that crop will not only be more devastating, but also make it easier for blights to spread from farm to far. Current GMOs, both by how they're designed, and licenced, make those situations necessary. Now, nothing about the technology itself makes those choices strictly necessary. For example: perhaps corn could be engineered with genes from a legume so it's nitrogen fixing. Doing a rotation between that GMO corn and some sort of legume would actually enrich the soil without fertilizer and fertilizer run-off. That field could then be used for a cashcrop after, all without petroleum fertilizer. Then you have tactics like the American Indians with the "three sisters:" squashes that shaded out weeds, corn, and beans that used the corn as a trellis. Lots of food in a small plot with little tilling, but did require a bit of tending. AI robots could do that tending. And before you scream GMOs, and round-up, and pesticides, and vast tracts of monocultures are necessary: look at Cuba. After the fall of the USSR, Cuba suddenly lost access to tractor parts, herbicides, pesticides, and GMOs at the same time they needed to start growing their own food. They used science to rush through new intensive, and mostly organic, methods to grow enough to feed their population. Without any of the dangerous practices that Monsanto pushes for, they've just about matched the peracre yields of conventional farms, while at the same time, becoming far more resilient. Now, imagine if Cuba had a few GMO crops that were engineered to work in such a rotation? And you're right, it shouldn't just be Monsanto. People pay taxes for the government to handle problems and start initiatives that don't make sense, or are unprofitable or undesirable, for free enterprise to tackle. The department of agriculture should get more money, hire geneticists, and they should be developing GMOs designed for smarter farming.
When it comes to monoculture, GMOs clearly win: less pests, better yields. Where organic agriculture really shines is in polyculture. When you grow a whole bunch of crops together - say, potatoes, peas, beans, greens, and corn, you get a lot more food from the same amount of land. More pest resistance with less pesticide. The only problem is that it takes more labor to harvest. Maybe some innovations could solve that?
Yes....like hiring people so they have work. Sustainable food-growing is indeed better in places where monocultures can't work (or have been used and strip the land). Part of that picture is growing what a farmer and its employees can eat, and a trade/wage situation that actually benefits the farmers, not only a corporation that has little or no local stake except for profit. That's one reason that fair-trade food costs more....and (sometimes) I can afford to put my money there....but I won't for BigAg organic. If (gem) gmo farming was really science working as a support to the bigger picture of regional and local farmers....not Monsanto-type umbrellas for profit...that could be SO different.
A lot of conventional growers have experimented or allocated small plots to organic production. That has helped (slowly) improve conventional production as these growers apply the subset of organic practices which are actually more efficient to their conventional crops. On pests... Organic doesn't provide any silver bullets, but there are some techniques in there which do work well in conjunction with conventional methods. Though being able to use strong chemical pesticides when those organic methods fail is pretty important too. Integrated pest management (IPM) has been a thing longer than organic has.
I don’t innately oppose GMOs because I don’t believe they are necessarily dangerous. In fact I strongly believe that GM humans and wildlife are an inevitability, and I think it will help eliminate a wide array of biological problems. My opinion is rooted in the opposition of agroindustry, which generally favors monocultures. While efficient, I think this only enables the continuation of ecological degredation already present. Secondly I think it depends on how you define ‘overpopulation’. We are able to raise the carrying capacity but are humans able to sustain a global society with that many people? Will rights be infringed if certain groups are seen as too numerous? Will class disparity tear a rift in society? Will ecosystems be so damaged by luxury industries and agriculture that they are unable to react to stochastic events? Or will these previously fruitful ecosystems become damaged beyond use? Will an extinction event (often called the Sixth Mass Extinction) trigger a cascade effect where most species we know today are gone? Undoubtedly history is full of tragedies and hardships; it seems we’ve only hit the tip of the iceberg, and the human sacrifice that could be required is sobering. So a population collapse is still possible, it’s always possible; and it’s possible that there may be a problem we can’t solve or mitigate or remediate. So in that way I support two things: like Hawkins said, we need to become a space fairing species like now; and two earth should be viewed as a heritage site and genetic library for transpermic endeavors. While I realize that’s ‘far away thinking’ I think it’s important; I have a 10 year plan, but I also have a plan for tomorrow too.
GMOs are neither safe nor unsafe. It's like saying "all chemicals are safe" or "all chemicals are unsafe". Just as some are safe, some are unsafe. We only know which are safe through extensive testing. We really need to change the dialog and stop irresponsibly spreading these generalizations.
Growing two or more plants alongside each other impacts crop density, yield, and the ease and use of machinery for tending them. The biggest issue with monocultures is that they leach the same nutrients from the soil season after season, while different crops might have different nutrient needs and allow the soil to replenish. This issue is just as easily addressed by crop rotation and has little to do with organic farming vs GMO. You can rotate GMO crops, too. This is more readily addressed via discussion of cash crops and staples, where it makes good business sense, at least in the short run, to grow as much of a high-margin crop as possible, or to grow as much of a calorie-dense crop as possible (feeding the world). Again, neither is specifically relevant or even exclusive to GMO vs Organic.
I don't understand why monocultures enable ecological degradation , monocultures increase yield per unit of land and so that means you need less land . In this way it seems to be that monocultures are more environmentally friendly. If your worried about soil degradation that can be solved with crop rotation witch is something that many large agricultural corporations practice. You should really go after organic farms, because its already been established that they use vastly more land than their industrial counterparts
Interesting perspective. If we were not overpopulated, would "organic farming" be enough to feed the world? This organism has about filled it's test tube and is running out of nutrients with increased waste toxins in the mix.
Although I agree with a lot of things in this video, one thing that should've been mentioned is that exposure to Glyfosate has been liked to cancer. Don't worry, it's not consumers who end up getting cancer, it's mostly local communities close to the plantations, which get their water supplies contaminated.
Same here and in my opinion if science can ever eliminate the risk of birth defects then I would have no problems with it even if they wanted to have children long as it is truly consensual and they are of age.
I can agree with most of this (I have some background in Agriculture) but the past where you hint that natural pesticides are pretty much the same thing is just wrong. The health risks of Monsanto sprays vs the use of sulfur powder, arsenic (which natural breaks down), or lady bugs is a clear difference when you look at health/environmental impacts.
Geez, I wish I found this video back when I was making a speech about GMOs a couple of months back. Very good work, I'm always glad to see people properly discussing and informing the public about genetic modification.
I've heard the same discussion about an incestual relationship on birth control. Only the least thoughtful people gave the, "It's wrong, but I don't know why," answer. The real answer is that a familial relationship is something important to humans. Sexual relationships are important too. Combining them violates them both. It's not just disgust for disgust's sake.
The problem is, a lot of people don't teach why things are wrong. For a highly Christian country, there is a clear Biblical precident that it is wrong, but parents don't teach that. They just say, "It's wrong" without taking their kids to the doctrine that teaches why it is wrong.
This channel is really interesting, ive been surprised by a lot of what you've said, i'm just about to go into 9th grade, and ive been taught about the dangers of GMOs and that of overpopulation, learning that some of these things are straight up incorrect makes you wonder what else you've learned that is just wrong that we trust because we learned it in school, i wish i could attach the the more you know video thingamabobber.
I know a great deal about the hard science and smaller details of GMOs thanks to my agriculture class, but this was very helpful for seeing the bigger picture.
The problem is not the genetic modification of food, it is the extreme amounts of pesticides (often proven carcinogens) required to grow GMOs, as well as reduction in soil quality due to the monoculture nature of growing them. The food itself is probably fine.
Your videos are really great to watch. And I am amazed that after watching tons of them, this is the first one where I disagree with you on some points. Great work man.
Im watching a video about "unnatural stuff is ew" that has been fired around the globe, on a device that's flashing lights into my face, makes a spool vibrate, with energy produced either from burning dinosaurs or splitting atoms. #Natural
Provided the sibling scenario unfolds exactly as stated (no kids). I don't know if i could tell them 'no'. It'd creep me the hell out, and I'd feel deeply uncomfortable in either of their presence, let alone both, eeugh. That said, my moral framework (tldr, don't intentionally or negligently hurt anybody and you're good) precludes me trying to stop them. I'd probably subtly avoid them, but i wouldn't want bad for them. It comes down to sovereignty over ones own body, to me. Don't dump anthrax in the ocean, keep to the Paris agreement, otherwise it's none of my business. Still though, ew.
Thanks for the "there is no over population problem." I've been saying that for decades, I've only heard it from a few sources. The logic never made sense when you look at how much food is thrown away. We have a food distribution problem.
@@Jabberwockybird The housing issue is more of a result of circumstances and greed. Everyone decided at the same time that they wanted a house so it became an issue. There is also the fact that people want to live within a certain distance of certain cities, making that real estate more in-demand and since it's limited, more expensive.
Well of course, people have to make money in some way or another. And besides the people worked to create the organism so in all fairness it should be theirs.
Even patents expire. And besides, normal corn/soy/etc already exists AND IT ISN'T FEEDING THE WORLD. Buying seeds that grow in your desert or wherever is preferable to free seeds that don't grow.
"Feed the world" isn't the motivation, its "charge the world" and far too often, "monopolise and control the world." The argument that it costs too much if companies can't patent food is fallacious when "The Thought Emporium" TH-cam channel can do it in a garage with things bought from eBay.
then your against patents not GMO's. Patents are necessary to an extent so that its profitable to come up with new tech but at a certain point they just create monopolies
@@Marixchatt Oh my fucking god the economy should be at our service not the other way around. Millions of farmer shouldn't surfer for a few rich fucks.
You can say what you want, the problem starts where a company is allowed to patent a plant and this plant is contaminating real crops that have been cultivated by farmers for ages and these crops then fall under this patent. it's just sick...
The real issue is the best known GMO's are made by Monsanto, a company with a horrific record of not seeming to care about the consequences, hiding studies that make them look bad, and suing everyone who opposes them ... Not the most trustworthy of companies who have gone out of their way to cover up any issues (and they don't want to feed the world ) Other corporations have a much better record, and no-one seems to be worried about them or their products ...
Nice, carrots are orange because of us (dutch people) XD. Great video. And btw the past dutch flag was "orange white blue" and now its "red white blue", but when they changed the carrots color the flag was probably the orange one. Again great video.
Great video man, I'm a biotech major and I have to clear up these types of questions a whole lot. I'll send them your way to help them see the bigger picture!
I work for a pest control company and we offer an option to use organic pesticides instead of synthetic. The thing is the active ingredient on both pesticide is the same, the only difference is one comes out of a flower and costs more, and the other is synthesized in a lab. There are other difference in the method of application and dilution rates. But chances are the organic food you get at the grocery store has the exact same pesticide on it as the non organic food. You're literally paying more for a label.
The issue I have with GM crops, particularly "Round-up ready" crops is it allows for rampant overuse of herbicides & pesticides which wreak havoc on the rest of the environment. My question is always "genetically modified for what?" and the answer to that question is seldom readily available. The GM food industry needs more transparency if it wants to gain the public's trust.
ShaVaughn, you say the issue you have with GM crops is particularly with "Round-up ready" crops is it allows for rampant overuse of herbicides & pesticides. OK, but no other GM crop leads to any increase in any agricultural chemical, and most of them lead to a large decrease in chemical use. So you should perhaps be praising all the other GM crops. But there's also another side of the story for glyphosate. Before there were any GMO crops, the world's most used herbicide was atrazine. The single biggest reason it was used so much is that corn is naturally immune to atrazine, so it was sprayed on cornfields to kill weeds, exactly as corn farmers now do with GMO corn and glyphosate. There are two reasons why a switch from atrazine to glyphosate is a good thing. First, it is dozens of times more toxic than glyphosate. Second, glyphosate is sticky and doesn't move freely through soil, whereas atrazine flows right into aquifers and into other bodies of water. In fact, the EU regulators have decided that there is no practical way to use atrazine safely. Now I anticipate that you will say that replacing one herbicide by another is not enough - you want them gone. But can you at least recognize that the GMO herbicide tolerance has been of some benefit in making a bad practice somewhat better? I have another comment. You used the word "rampant". I've seen other people comment on farmers "dousing" or "drowning" the crops in Roundup. Sometimes words like that get in the way of clear thinking. A typical rate of application of Roundup would be about a quart per acre. That's a lot more like misting than dousing. "Rampant" suggests a farmer using Roundup like an insane person. The farmer is sensitive to the cost, if nothing else. Please try to keep your language suitable for reasoned logic, not for stirring up passions that get in the way of the truth.
I love your videos but often your the titles to your videos do not draw my attention. I have skipped over this video for the longest time because of the weird title. Now that I watched it I loved it and love he information in it.
This made me remember the episode Penn & Teller's Bullshit did on this very subject with much of the same points years and years ago. Man, that show was awesome. It's good that there are YT channels like this that educate people like that show did with me in its time.
Over population is a thing anywhere the region can no longer support the population existing on it, whether that's due to a lack of infrastructure, food, water, or other resources. It's not a hard cap, and yes, the cap can be increased through development, better crop growing methods, water purification systems, transportation of food into dangerous areas, and so on, but until these methods are put in place to up the cap, overpopulation absolutely exists. Australia for instance is nearing its population cap due to so much of our land being in drought, a severe lack of infrastructure into the desert to make it arable, fracking poisoning a great deal of water, our population piling into cities, and a government who doesn't want to build the infrastructure necessary to support the growth of the population.
The population cap experts talk about isnt because the earth cant support anymore that is the point when the world as a whole would be developed enough that most people arnt interested in kids. You know what people who have lots of money to spend usually dont want to do? raise kids.
love the video. however, I do believe we will still face a food crisis in the future if agriculture doesn't make some change, due to soil degradation. I believe the key will be to remove the love we have for our lawns, and return to personal gardens where possible to help supply. not to say everyone has the option, but there are many who could who do not (myself included, although I rent)
Physical disgust ... " What I feel when I look in the mirror (9:17)" LOL. You got jokes. Love your TH-cam videos. Always great to watch, gain knowledge and have a laugh while I'm at it. Keep up the great work.
What do you mean there's no GMO animal food for sale??? I've been eating knockout mice for years!!! You'll never find a more expensive delicacy than a $5,000 mouse. I mean it tastes like shit because of the tumors but so do most expensive delicacies.
Even with GMO‘s millions of people go hungry each day. I thought for sure you would talk about or mention indoor farming. I continue to enjoy your videos and share them. Nice work!
WOW! Things have sure changed since this video was made. My spouse and I like the videos put on this channel but we really think it's time for an updated "Frankenfood" episode. Are you up to the task?!
There are two issues you don't address. 1. The Roundup resistant GMO's encourage over use which is destructive of the environment because of the effect on other plantlife. 2. The effect of GMO seeds which are designed to produce infertile seeds so that 3rd world farmers are forced to buy seeds every year. Both of these whilst not objections to GMO's per say they are issues which need to be addressed before GMO's can be seen as the panacea they potentially can be. As you allude to in video Monsanto has a lot to answer for when it comes to giving GMO's a bad name.
> The effect of GMO seeds which are designed to produce infertile seeds so that 3rd world farmers are forced to buy seeds every year. Well, GMO seeds are just one more optional tool in the large array of those available for farming Farmers can choose between (asspull numbers) buying GMO seeds for $100 and growing enough produce to sell for $1000 and just growing non-GMO produce and selling for $500. The same way a century ago farmers could choose between buying a shovel for $10 and growing enough food to sell for $100 and digging the field with their hands and growing enough to sell for $20. GMO seeds are no different than shovels in this respect.
Thats assuming they have $100 dollars and can afford to spend it, whereas with fertile seeds they only need to buy an initial batch of seeds. You seem to forget these are subsistance farmers.
Subsistence farmers aren't the ones buying the GMO seeds. Not only are they out of reach monetarily (not only the seeds themselves, but also additional required components like glyphosate), but also there'd be no point, since at those scales you won't see the benefits of GMO (such as being able to farm very densely or use industrial-level pesticides).
I would suggest you do some research before making generalised comments like this. Specifically start with the effects of GMO cotton seeds on Indian farmers. As a general point the fact that on smaller scales the full benefit of GMO will not be seen doesn't prevent dealers selling the seeds on the promise that it will.
1. ''The Roundup resistant GMO's encourage over use which is destructive of the environment because of the effect on other plantlife.'' Roundup is actually more environmentally friendly than a lot of other common herbicides, it binds more tightly to soil thus preventing run off and has a relatively short half life with the decomposition products being harmless. Furthermore, it shifts the problem - other herbicides would then be used in place of RU. Ofc that doesn't mean even better alternatives shouldn't be looked for, everything can be improved. 2. '2. The effect of GMO seeds which are designed to produce infertile seeds so that 3rd world farmers are forced to buy seeds every year.' - Thats a bit of a non point and also slightly misleading. Firstly with cash crops, you generally buy new seeds anyways to prevent genetic drift changing the qualities of the crop. 'Terminator seeds' is what you are alluding too, a technology that while exists on paper doesn't actually exist in real life as Monsanto didn't like the ethical challenge it would pose (I mean you can spin that either way). Lastly a lot of the litigation around using patented seeds comes from the actual farmers themselves - you pay to get a better yield, so why should your neighbour get to use the seeds that spilled over onto his land and reap the benefits that you paid for giving him the edge.
I got a general bone to pick. Everytime GMOs come up, people talk about dumb fears, by arguably dumb people. Few bring up any intelligent dissent. Like the legitimate concerns of invasive "super"weeds that develop because of excessive use of the pesticides that go with the pesticide resistant crops. Or how monocropping with these high yield crops seriously depletes the soil, and pumping ammonia into the ground to compensate for the lack of nutrients, is not exactly good for the environment. Patenting seeds, and fining small farmers who don't want to keep buying new seeds from these large businesses. (I didn't say corporation to suppress people's gag reflex.) Also, sure GMOs help feed the world, but apparently we throw away 40% of the food we produce. I think there's a middle ground between fear mongering and soothsaying where we can objectively and critically look at how the entire business and practice affects the world, environmentally and economically. Perhaps the benefits outweigh the risks, but I feel confident that we could likely do it better if we stopped bickering about the dumb stuff. Thems just me thoughts.
Pesticides are a blanket term for all insecticides (controls bugs), Herbicides (controls plants), fungicides (controls fungi), Rodenticides (controls rodents), Bactericides (controls bacteria), and Larvicides (controls bacteria). Roundup ready just makes the crop resistant to Roundup and a few other herbicides. Other than that, great video.
Lot in this, and I did “like.” I’m an industrial chemist and could endorse the video because it very compactly covers a lot pretty well. I think you were a little dismissive or organic and you certainly are not right about taste, unless it the same variety grown with similar intensity. By an heirloom tomato and one at Safeway- not too tough to tell. But I’ll give you its more about the kind and ripeness than the use of fertilizer. I also think your a little unfair about organic and chemicals. Sure they both have chemicals as we and food is all chemicals. But they have less persistent bioacculative toxins - not a made up thing. Why I still like your discussion is these technologies are not evil, they are tools, they are a means to an end they may not be getting enough respect. I am reading on the the issue that we can’t feed the world with organic food, I still don’t have an answer. But, I think there is a good case that conventional agriculture’s problems may prove it also can’t feed the world due to soil erosion. Of course, that’s more than just chemicals its culture and mechanization. On the GMO’s its not well understood the resistance to GMO’s is mostly political and in the sciences its more accepted for mostly you reasons. I tell people this: GMO’s are when natural chemicals get into unnatural place or levels. To get unnatural chemicals into unnatural places is the realm of Chemistry (me). As a species we don‘t have a great record here - be careful dismissing the concerns, we can make a mess of things. Below is asked what’s happening to science: many answers but one thing for sure we see a tendency for short term thinking and hyper-politicization of everything. So we begun to loose faith in institutions. We also have a clear “what have you done for me lately problem.” Take vaccines, they haven’t seen the morbidity of the past, so a small worry that probably doesn’t exist is a big deal. It’s almost like we need a crisis to be civil again.
I haven't agreed with every position you've taken, but I credit you with being a smart guy. I wish we were neighbors. As for GMOs', I agree with you. Aside from the points you made, there's this: though it's ability to do so is limited (poisons will negatively impact you), your body is good at utilizing from food only that which is useful. The rest exits. I doubt that any GMO will negatively impact a body. As long as your body is getting the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, and other molecules that it needs, does it matter how they were produced? What can be a more artificial source of protein and vitamins than a "power bar?" Yet we don't fear them.
what? colors arent just made up by our brains... colors depend on their wavelength of light. some animals see colors differently because their eyes are different, but the light wavelength is the same all the time.
I'm playing Dark Souls 3 along with your videos so maybe I missed something...but I'm pretty sure I JUST watched a video where you said that purple doesn't occur in nature.
You haven't touched on engineering plants to be sterile (or seed-less) and its possible consequences (cloning effectively reduces the genetic diversity of crops). The permaculture movement regularly says that their methods provide even higher yelds than modern industrialized farming. Monsanto's GMO crops are a solution (chemical pesticide resistance) to a bad solution(chemical pesticides) to a problem (pests). I'd rather have a better solution to the pest problem. It's the pesticides that I want to stay clear of, not necessarily the GMO aspect - though I have concerns with that too.
A huge point people seem to overlook: Due to the use of herbicides, we no longer use tillage as a form of weed control. Tillage caused the dust bowl. If we didn't have herbicides and GMOs, it would be the 30s all over again. Tillage also uses an excessive amount of fuel. The cost of production and carbon emissions would rise exponentially.
Orgánic farming has been evolving too. Science is Not going only one direction, neither should we. Let us be open minded and keep researchers and Big business responsible, but let us not fear the future. We GOT this. Just as long we keep ourselves informed. We need TH-cam to grow even more, as youtubers hold each other accountable. Soon this is Where we Will get the news and truth, and some of us, no a lot of us - already are. I Trust this channel, i would never think that the man behind is omnipotent, so keep looking at all of them, but be aware of those that try to elicit an emotional response, guard your heart with your mind, so your mind be less clouded.
Quality content, you're one of my favorite smart youtube channels to watch (along with Kurzgesagt, check them out). I usually agree with you, but this topic is really unsettling to me. I'm european (Polish if anyone cares) and my tribe is quite conservative. Well, majority is What about Monsanto convincing EFSA to increase Round-up limits in food? What about (overall) more cancer in the world? I heard once that if we cut out wheat (which is super-modified, chemically-fertilized etc. novadays) from our diet we won't get half of civilization diseases (can't proof if it's true tough). This topic is very important to be because I try to stay "natural" but at the same time I try to be as objective as it gets to be fair to everybody. And I want humans to develop, but GMO seems just disgusting to me in worst way-like... pathetic. Pathetic that we as humans have to do disgusting things ith our food to survive.. I know that's pretty old video to have a conversation under but.. here I am. Dont have reddit :{
The EFSA has accepted the safety of glyphosate. There are FEWER cancers in 1st world nations, not more, and that is not in any way directly connected to foods, you completely ignored the more likely suspects like air and water pollution which are proven to be carcinogenic in many cases. The very concept of 'natural' is a joke now. There is no longer an accurate definition for that word, especially when applied to foods. What is disgusting about using a common mustard plant to derive cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli, brussels sprouts, kale and turnips from? We did that for our benefit and new GMOs continue in that vein while dealing with increasing challenges to farmers from global warming and rising populations. You have no logical legitimate basis for your objections.
I am a Danish student in the farming industry. I have no problems with your explanation of GMO's and the psycholgy part, But you completely missed the purpose of organic farming. I understand that this topic is very hard to research properly because sadly there is so much misinformation on the topic. Organic farming is about growing crops in a more sustainable way. Conventional farmers have for the last century, exhausted their fields, by growing huge monoculture fields, just added the fertilizer they needed and then harvesting everything. all that fertilizer the plants have "eaten" is now, not on the fields but in the harvested crop. next year the field has a lower amount of fertilizer in the soil, so they add more and this cycle continues. The next question is where does all this magic fertilizer come from? Most often it comes from India and China, where the factories are not quite built with the environment in mind. it is also an environmental problem locally where the fertilizer is applied, it usually ends up in a nearby river or lake and that's really bad. Organic farming is about fixing all these all these problems mentioned above (and many more) to make farming more sustainable. I would say separating organic farming with GMO's are a political choice, because of what you said about moral disgust and maybe also because GMO's are made with conventional farming in mind. So what I'm saying is please don't just dismiss all that Organic farming has accomplished, just because it is not a GMO. I really like your channel in general, but this video made my blood boil because you completely dismissed organic farming, without looking at the big picture.
There is nothing wrong with Organic farming per se, however like GMO the term is fairly useless. There are plenty of environmentally destructive chemicals that fit the name of 'organic', and it still suffers from a low yield compared to conventional farming - something that I think will hold it back even more so as global consumption increases (unless there is a dramatic change in the way developed nations supply and consume produce). I am not saying that conventional farming is environmentally better or does not changing however.
In my eyes, most of the problems revolve around the meat industry and the global consumption of meat. 1 kg of meat needs a crazy amount of food and water. so if everyone was vegans (this is utopia, i know), then we could easily feed everyone (with a surplus) with farmland we have now. And I know its impossible to a 100 % organic (at the moment at least) but that doesn't mean shouldn't try....
Or you just eat meat on special occations not every single day like many people do nowadays... I mean if you slaughter some goats when you have a party but then don't eat meat for weeks or months again then it's pretty minimal impact and maybe even more effective since you'd only use non arable land for grazing anyway
I applaud you pointing out the conflation of transgenic and bred or selected/foods. There still are several ecological, economic and social arguments against corporate-controlled transgenic crops, particularly in so far as they are currently designed for profit-focused, but ultimately unsustainable (because of the externalities) forms of industrial agriculture. Genetic engineering will definitely play a part in future (resilient) food systems, but I don't think anything in the current market is leading us where we need to be. Also as I side note, the global divide between "conventional" and "organic" is not as stark as it appears. Artificial inputs are expensive. Last time I checked, roughly half of global agricultural nitrogen inputs are non-synthetic, especially in poorer regions. Considering the high energy costs of artificial nitrogen fixation, reusing cheap nitrogen (including human waste) will always be an important input. It ultimately boils down to best practices.
GMOs are neither safe nor unsafe. It's like saying "all chemicals are safe" or "all chemicals are unsafe". Just as some are safe, some are unsafe. We only know which are safe through extensive testing. We really need to change the dialog and stop irresponsibly spreading these generalizations.
@@jayyyzeee6409 It's funny you say that, because it's FDA who regulates what goes to the market, not the companies. The companies only do their best to cope with the regulation. Now if you doubt the credibility of FDA, then why don't you stop taking any medications and stop buying food at all? Grow your own vegetables and herbs in your backyard seem to be safe?
@@angelkilier U.S. federal protection agencies are a joke. They serve the industries they're supposed to be regulating, not the citizens they're supposed to be protecting. I do the best I can to minimize the risks, and yes, I do grow some of my own food at least.
@@jayyyzeee6409 However you perceive this, there's no difference in the way they regulate medicines and non-GMO foods (not saying they do it perfectly) and GMO food. If any, that is it's more strict on GMO foods. There is no reason to just bring up how GMO foods are tested and as if it's any different from other foods. They all come from big corporations after all.
@@angelkilier There would be no reason to talk about testing legacy foods since they've been consumed for many decades or centuries. I'm bringing up testing of GMO foods since unlike legacy foods, there's no reason to assume GMO foods are safe.
Well said! I personal study Bioengineering. On this topic, most of time we /scientists blame ourselves for not informed enough to the public. However, I think the fear of GMO is caused by 1: lack of knowledge 2: fear of unknown 3: selfish and ignorant.
Thing is, even though my gut reaction to incest is to be grossed out by it, I’m willing to accept incest in the context that you brought up (especially if they are family that met as adults, such as the case with some adopted people). I still take issue if they were raised as siblings. Not because it’s gross (though it is), but because a lot of victims of incest were groomed by their elders to think it’s normal. So if they wait until they are if legal age to bump uglies, does that make it any less exploitative? I don’t think so. I think it all depends on the context.
Personally I’m against GM crops that are owned and copyrighted/patented by large corporations. There have been small farmers that have had their crops unintentionally cross-pollinated with GM crops, specifically from Monsanto, and they had their crops seized due to copyright/patent infringement. GMO’s are a good thing inherently, but corporate manipulation and greed has corrupted the concept. It commodifies human survival
The internet has completely desensitized me to moral disgust. My legit reaction to the incest thing was, "Who cares, if no one's gonna get hurt, it doesn't matter."
Albeit organic farming not being able to feed the planet, that is also only due to the massive amounts of land with truly minimal food gain from the cattle/pig/chicken markets. If each of them were replaced, acre by acre, the vegetable/agro fields would produce ten times the weight of what the meat producing land would make. Outside of that, I definitely feel what you mean. Thanks for another informative video
In the general sense of "genetic modification" you start with, which includes selective breeding, all of our food today, plant or animal, is extremely modified from its original state. You may have seen a few interesting examples like tiny wild corn cobs or bananas with large seeds, but the reality is that _every_ food is changed substantially from its wild variety, sometimes much more than you would think possible.
Sorry but overpopulation IS a thing! Of course we can feed 12 billions people easily, I'm not denieing this point. But we have to look further than food. Especially if we want every country to have a decent standard font living, we have to look at resources, and the environnement (especially biodiversity). If we use GMO, then we use pesticides and we can feed the world. But we also kill a lot of insects in the making... So more human means less wildlife. More humans means more use of ressources like rare earth element or oil, and that destroy the environment. There is a thing called the eart overshoot day. It is that day when we start using the reserves of the earth because we're done consuming what it produced naturally over one year. It first appeared in the late 80s when the global population was 5 billions. Today it is in august and we are almost 8 billions. So a good manageable population is 5 billions. And if we want all countries to have good standard of living, maybe 3 billions top. So again, saying overpopulation is not a thing is true if we only talk about feeding everyone. But if we loin at the global picture, the wildlife, the ressources, the way we live... we would need 2 earths to satisfy our global needs on the long run... we are already in a situation of overpopulation. The only durable solutions would be reducing the population, Or, having 10 billions people with the sale standar living as today India
You do understand that herbicides and pesticides have been around almost as long as agriculture, right? GMOs allow farmers to make use of certain pesticides that could be more environmentally friendly, but would otherwise kill the staple crop. Breeding/modifying a staple to be resistant to a safer (for the rest of the environment) is beneficial. Example time: I want to grow corn. Corn is killed by chemical A, which breaks down quickly and has a small effect on local ecosystems as runoff. Chemical B is safe for corn, but 2x more toxic to the environment (those poor frogs) and takes longer to break down, so it builds up over time, which amplifies its negative affects. A GMO corn product is released, allowing me to use the safer chemical A AND increase my yields simultaneously. You may have moral disgust, but ethically, the GMO is the wiser choice, especially considering other GMOs permit reduced water usage or other positive/environmentally friendly traits.
I think GEOs are necessary however a point I think you need to point out further is Monsanto crops. Engineering plants resilient to pesticides rather then engineering them to be more resilient to weeds and insects is done out of greed instead of altruism. That in itself isn't illegal however their pesticides and fertilizers have lead to jeopardizing insect populations and has led to putrification of many bodies of water. GEOs are the technology that will feed the world however we must make sure that the byproducts of their production are less detrimental. This will require GEOs focused on self production of biologically produced pesticides to prevent the detriment of current crop treatments.
One amazing GMO is Golden Rice, modified so that it produces biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, which rice does not naturally produce. Since rice is the main staple food in many Asian countries, this means that conditions such as blindness are more common, since it can be brought on by a vitamin A deficiency. With the use of Golden Rice, the blindness rates in these countries have fallen.
Didn’t Greenpeace heavily campaign against golden rice? :/
@@jan_Masewin yup
@@jan_Masewin Greenpeace are idiots, they promote ruby grapefruit which was originally gamma farmed
The same thing could be achieved with Vitamin A supplementation, and we could dispense with the corporate-patented monoculture.
@@georgemartin5980 It's not patented though. Free to use.
I want GMO chocolate muffins that are good for Diabetics and make you lose weight.
Damnit I missed the 100th like.
I second that emotion! 🤭😂✍🏾👍🏾
Sure but you probably won't like the taste and/or price.
I’m sorry. No genetic modification on the muffins would help. On you? Then maybe.
What, olestra and saccharin aren't good enough for you?
Purple carrots sound pretty dope, kinda like "shiny" produce.
Make a fortune at the Farmer's Market.
I get them once in a while. They aren't quite as sweet as the orange ones.
Long beet
There are seeds for these and they grow in 6-10 inches of soil. Meaning you can grow them in a pot.
They aren't as sweet and tend to be more fibrous so they hold up better in stews.
Pomme de terre literal translation is apple of the land (or earth). And of yah frites means French fries in French, and their origins is not french
They're using frog genes to turn my FRIGGIN' FRIES GAY!
In other countries, people eat frog. There's no need to worry. Atleast they're using non poisonous frogs.
@@angieangel8623 r/woooosh
@The Lame Flame This isn’t reddit!
@@501ststormtrooper9 maybe you should do an actual reply like mine
@Superbeltman One question.
Where the heck is that.
One of my favorite GMO stories is about a little arctic fish that evolved naturally to have it's own anti-freeze that prevents its blood from freezing. And if you were to mix a bit of that fish blood with with low fat or fat free ice cream, before you freeze it, it will be smoother, more creamy, with much less ice crystals that would cause an unpleasant texture. If you remember a product that was sold in the 1970's, called "ice milk" then you remember just how unpleasant healthy frozen dairy treats used to be, before this little fish's blood came along.
But there a couple of problems with using the fish's blood. Harvesting the fish is expensive, and you would need a lot of them to obtain enough of the blood to sustain the ice cream industry, so many that it would likely make that fish quickly go extinct.
But GMOs to the rescue!
By inserting some of the fish genes in yeast, they were able to grow it cheaply and abundantly, so much that they can not only support the ice cream industry and keep the healthier, lower fat treats affordable, there's enough that they can develop other products that can save lives....
One of those products in development is a de-icer that can be used on airplanes, so that there's less chance of potentially fatal accidents occurring when planes take off in winter. And it can be used on electrical power lines reducing the chances of power outages and accidental electrocution from downed power lines, caused by the excessive weight of accumulated winter ice and snow. And that also means that linemen won't have to risk their lives climbing up slippery poles and braving high winds during storms, trying to restore power.
And families that rely on electric heat won't freeze to death because of a power outage
And people that rely on life saving electrical medical equipment won't die during a storm.
And it could be used to preserve life saving donor organs for a longer period of time, without damage, leading to more people waiting for an organ will have a better chance of getting one.
All from some GMO yeast.
And the arctic fish won't go extinct!
Wait a minute! I liked ice milk!!!
I know it's a bit of a cliché to say this, but - UGH, how do you not have more subs?! You definitely deserve at least a million. Thank you for the great content!
+SomePeculiarities I appreciate that :) I suppose it's because I don't pimp myself out or advertise much. I put it on a few small subreddits and just see what happens. More people sharing it will help me grow.
And I'd be ecstatic at just like... 100k subs. No need for a million :)
KnowingBetter idk, I think it might take off once you reach a thousand, since that seems to have been happening a lot lately with smaller channels with consistent content
The only way for me to reach a thousand is by word of mouth through people like you :) I'm doing all I can without making myself feel like a spammer.
Knowing Better Lonstanto is the physical embodiment of Logan Paul on a moral standard and I can prove that with two words Agent Orange
You cross-reference a lot of other publishers, but do they do the same for you, as often? A cross-reference is how I got here, but it took me 5 years to find that reference to your channel. Anyway. Great work! Thanks for the content!
Here's the thing, 'friend.' Your points aren't in accordance to my opinions, so THEY MUST be wrong. You're just wrong.
Roach DoggJR Sadly this is the way many people still think.
Sadly this is the average mindset of your average person
Dear mista Roach Dogg, do we live in a society? Do gamers face oppression? Thanks in advance.
True
He got a point ...
I remember specifically watching a History channel documentary about GEOs/GMOs and was surprised that so many people were against them. I remember one example they used were the potatoes that were engineered to be naturally resistant to one or two major pests for the crop and so they didn't have to use pesticides on them at all, which made the food safer and cheaper. McDonalds cut a deal to start using them for their fries and people were outraged, even though the new potatoes were cheaper and safer!
GMOphobia here in Serbia is getting ridiculous, thanks for making this video so maybe I can spread some actual awareness.
What is happening to our education system that people no longer trust science or at least seem to lack the ability to apply critical thinking?
It's because, they just tell you small amounts of information, leaving huge gaps, and not giving you an intuitive understanding of what they are teaching you.
It'a all atrophied. Generational inheritance of shallow culture in schools, and teacher qualifications have dropped. I'm shocked how many times I have seen a kid post under a good GMO video how their teachers hate GMOs and tell them GMO science is evil. How the hell can any good come from that?
I'd say it's due to the intermingling with corporations, as he put it in his video.
The moment any big innovation is revealed by a corporation or researchers paid by a corporation... it incites distrust. And rightfully so, I'd say. Corporations are usually out for the money, not for the betterment of mankind. Studies can be and have been influenced or undermined (see VW emission scandal).
Plus there's a lack of trust in regulations and enforcement... which is also not completely uncalled for, for the same reasons. (Not just direct corruption, but for example as far as I remember the European-American trade agreement tried to undermine European regulations and enforcement for US products.)
There are just too many examples, when scepticism was appropriate and there are too few (publicly known?) trustworthy authorities to guide or soothe that scepticism.
It's because a) the government runs the schools, and b) the people who run the government no longer care about the common good, because c) PC politics have elevated subjective concepts over objective ones -- diversity values over right and wrong, for example. So for every conservative "creationism over evolution" or "global warming isn't real", there's a liberal "fetuses aren't human" or "dude born with a penis is actually female". Or in this case, "GMOs are always bad because scary corporations are scary".
Schools aren't interested in teaching real science, or real history, or real anything else that has an ideological component to it. They just want to reflect the values of whomever the local school board votes for.
Or maybe it's because of people like you who equate anti global warming with trans activism and thereby muddy the water.
One of those things is a scientific field... the other a social discussion. We can define society ourselves, but we can't decide what hurts the ecologic balance of the planet.
And I hope I don't have to explain the VERY FUCKIN' HUGE difference in consequences for the survival of mankind, if one of those two movements gets their will respectively.
Vermont just passed a law requiring all GMOs to be labeled.
People are now measurably more comfortable with gmo foods according to new studies.
Labeling GMOs is good for their public image. Hiding info makes people suspicious.
Dalym Or they have no choice since organic is more expensive? I'm all for information, but the people who say this just want to boycott GMO's. Interesting study though... Will look into it.
To be fair people also will say If it's safe why do yo have to label it
I wonder how many of them suddenly became comfortable when they noticed the price difference.
Labeling gmo is dishonest though. As every food would need a label. Even those not engineered. it also implies a difference from "normal" food that doesn't exist. It promotes a fear that is unjustified.
It would be like slapping a label on apples that said "Not grown with shit" it implies that any crops that use fertilizer have something wrong with them.
"Every food would need a label"
No, not every kind of food is a GMO. Being selectively bred, like bananas or carrots, does not make it a GMO. The genes are literally modified, but the term GMO has a very specific use in this context.
And labels are already very dishonest. If you see the word "fresh" on something, don't believe it. Fresh means something entirely different in the marketing world.
PSA: for anyone wanting to use the "TRIGGERED" bar and sound effect, follow these steps:
Step 1: Start Audacity (or your preferred recording software)
Step 2: Blow into a microphone on a single recording track
Step 3: Turn up said track until ridiculous clipping occurs
Step 4: TURN DOWN THE MASTER VOLUME c'mon people you can clip a track and turn down the master so it doesn't blow out someone's ear drums, it's not hard to do.
(great vidoes though dude. you've found a big fan here. but please. turn down the master on that "triggered" sound)
while reading this, I read turn down the master volume and then the triggered thing in the episode popped up... ow
RIP my ears through headphones
Or you can just use a DAW and a distortion plugin
great way of putting it into simple terms, but yeah it's possible to clip a sound and preserve the distortion without needing to have it cranked up so loud.
Going 70mph on the highway when that sound comes up. Scared the shit out of me.
MSG is an interesting related topic. Now it’s just a flavoring, not a staple crop, but there is similar distrust of the product.
The funniest thing for me is when people tell me they are MSG sensitive and then put tons of soy sauce on their food. I normally don't say anything because I don't like to be "that guy", but on the inside I am dying.
Mono-sodium glutamate is a protein not a crop....
Yeah, it's literally just an amino acid and salt. In fact, the combination is found naturally in meat, fermented foods, tomatoes, etc. But no one bats an eye at eating those. I thing the name is just scary to people. Which sounds friendlier: monosodium glutamate or miso paste?
Naturally occurring glutamate and monosodium glutamate are 2 completely different ingredients.
I am not just sensitive to MSG, but am deathly allergic to it (anaphylaxis). However, at the same time, I am capable of eating natural glutamate without any reaction.
So please, stop comparing the 2. There is a huge difference.
One interesting fact that I was told by a food scientist (so second hand, it may be a generalization) was that a good amount of non-organic food meets most requirements for organic they just haven't paid for the label since that takes years and costs a lot.
thats true, organic certification costs a fortune in most countries (if not all?), and without that you cant sell your produce as organic
I don't have an issue with GMO's at all. However, I'm not so sure I like a single company having as much control as they do over something so important.
(That and the genetic diversity question, but if we can stop smallpox surely we can stop a new plant disease)
They essentially control the food supply and no one elected them...like the Fed...spooky
+Aero That was a claim that the federal government was not elected. Are you American? If you’re European I can understand the complaint but that would only be fixable if you were willing to join a singular European state. If you’re from elsewhere please inform me.
If you’re from America, then there is no point in voting if that claim is true, is there? Do you vote?
@@curlyfryactual @Dashiell Gillingham I believe he's referring to the federal reserve, and not the federal government. While it's true that the fed is 'unelected' that's somewhat disingenuous because they're appointed, and therefor elected indirectly. In the same way betsy devos was 'unelected' but she got her position because of an election.
Lack of genetic diversity is the big fear with bananas. Covering farms with "really good" clones has immediate benefit, but ignores what really makes populations resilient to disease.
exactly
That ear rape scared me.
Sandy Waffle Bandit kek
I was prepared for it and still got scared.
he got me good
The term 'Ear Rape' kinda scares me
"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and ok for you."
-Judge Dredd, 1995
It’s just… ew.
I distrust anything labeled as organic or "natural". It's just a marketing scam.
Exactly. There isn't really anyway to tell unless you go to great leangh to verify that they are organic.
Organic food has certification in the west .
klanza dumas yes, in order for crops and to be labeled organic, they have to be certified, but that still doesn’t means it’s not a scam. For most certifications, only 95% or the food product has to be organic to be labeled “organic”. Even so, they still really do everything conventional farms do, sometimes to a worse extent. They still use fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, you name it, it just has to be “organic” and “natural”, that doesn’t mean it has to be good for the environment. Organic crops usually have a higher price margin as well, because if companies know consumers will buy it because it’s organic, it doesn’t matter the cost. Certified or not, it’s still a scam, because it’s not what people believe it to be.
Organic farming is best for the environment. Your scam argument is a strawman . Overpopulation and the GMO agenda is a scam . The scientists are paid off to shill and lie about the results not being harmful to humans or the environment .
klanza dumas how do you know organic farming is better? Because it’s “natural”? Artificial gets a bad wrap. Just because something is natural, doesn’t make it good. Just because something is artificial doesn’t make it bad. The artificial science community is under harsh scrutiny 100% of the time because if they don’t produce something that is better for the environment and the people, that product doesn’t sell, because consumers just won’t buy it. The organic industry, on the other hand, can get away with nearly anything, because if people believe it’s natural, it’s good.
Get your facts from reliable online source, not your organic Facebook page
The problem with GM foods is not with the technology itself, but in the way it's sometimes applied. For example, there are the "suicide seeds" that produce sterile grains when will not germinate. In pre industrial countries, corporations have lobbied to outlaw the time honored agricultural practice of seed banks.
Another problem is with the round-up resistant grains. Farmers are encouraged to use more roundup to increase yield and as a result the herbicide is finding it way into the food supply
most hybrid varieties will also produce either no seeds, or non viable seeds
But that's not being opposed to GMOs that's being opposed to bad practices within the field.
That's like being against using tractors because farmers have no right to repair, or some are not emission controlled.
@@gabemerritt3139 maybe this is pedantry but they said the only issue (related to them) they have, not that they’re Against anything. I would say your examples are perfectly fine issues to have with modern tractors and their manufacturers, but holding that opinion certainly doesn’t make one “anti-tractor”.
The issue with GMO's isn't they're evil in and of themselves: it's because GMO's make it easier to do dangerous practices: monocropping, excessive pesticide and herbicide use that makes pests resistant and exposes consumers to toxins.
Monocropping makes it more likely that a blight or pest can quickly adapt and destroy an entire crop, or a shift and weather would kill off most of the food supply.
Another issue is fertilizer causes environmental damage: and current farming practices use excessive amounts and are contributing to global warming. The crops could be GM'd to be nitrogen fixing, and dramaticlly cut fertilizer usage.
I think the future for farming will be AI operated robots to replace more herbicides (robotic weeding), with high diversity (AI harvesting that can sort), with GMO crops that are more designed to self fertilize as apposed to be "round up ready."
But Monsanto does not have an insensitive to bring about that future: they sell pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
I've seen a very, very early test of a robotic weeder, it was really cool (and solar powered because hell, you're growing crops so there's gotta be at least some light, right?).
@@Parabueto Uc dBm I
I think you probably meant incentive?
All of those things you mentioned are currently necessary to feed the world’s population. As for the future, why is one company responsible for bringing it about? If Monsanto (or now Bayer) doesn’t do it, their competition will. In the meantime, GMOs are how we feed the world, and I see no reason not to expand poorer countries’ consumption to the same kind of vegetables, fruits, and mears rich countries consume through the use of GMOs.
@@ZeteticPhilosopher I have no clue what your point was or how it related to my statements.
I said the issue with GMOs isn't that they exist, it's in how they're used. And then I said they're uses to encourage some damn dangerous practices.
High pesticide and herbicide use, and monocroping. Poor farmers in third world countries cannot afford to buy thousands gallons of round up, and tons of petroleum based fertilizers every year. And planting only one crop means a failure of that crop will not only be more devastating, but also make it easier for blights to spread from farm to far.
Current GMOs, both by how they're designed, and licenced, make those situations necessary.
Now, nothing about the technology itself makes those choices strictly necessary.
For example: perhaps corn could be engineered with genes from a legume so it's nitrogen fixing. Doing a rotation between that GMO corn and some sort of legume would actually enrich the soil without fertilizer and fertilizer run-off. That field could then be used for a cashcrop after, all without petroleum fertilizer.
Then you have tactics like the American Indians with the "three sisters:" squashes that shaded out weeds, corn, and beans that used the corn as a trellis. Lots of food in a small plot with little tilling, but did require a bit of tending. AI robots could do that tending.
And before you scream GMOs, and round-up, and pesticides, and vast tracts of monocultures are necessary: look at Cuba.
After the fall of the USSR, Cuba suddenly lost access to tractor parts, herbicides, pesticides, and GMOs at the same time they needed to start growing their own food.
They used science to rush through new intensive, and mostly organic, methods to grow enough to feed their population. Without any of the dangerous practices that Monsanto pushes for, they've just about matched the peracre yields of conventional farms, while at the same time, becoming far more resilient.
Now, imagine if Cuba had a few GMO crops that were engineered to work in such a rotation?
And you're right, it shouldn't just be Monsanto.
People pay taxes for the government to handle problems and start initiatives that don't make sense, or are unprofitable or undesirable, for free enterprise to tackle.
The department of agriculture should get more money, hire geneticists, and they should be developing GMOs designed for smarter farming.
when you said frankenfoods i imediately thought of my mothers 'inventions' when she put random things in a pot together. i feared them.
When it comes to monoculture, GMOs clearly win: less pests, better yields.
Where organic agriculture really shines is in polyculture. When you grow a whole bunch of crops together - say, potatoes, peas, beans, greens, and corn, you get a lot more food from the same amount of land. More pest resistance with less pesticide. The only problem is that it takes more labor to harvest. Maybe some innovations could solve that?
Yes....like hiring people so they have work. Sustainable food-growing is indeed better in places where monocultures can't work (or have been used and strip the land). Part of that picture is growing what a farmer and its employees can eat, and a trade/wage situation that actually benefits the farmers, not only a corporation that has little or no local stake except for profit. That's one reason that fair-trade food costs more....and (sometimes) I can afford to put my money there....but I won't for BigAg organic.
If (gem) gmo farming was really science working as a support to the bigger picture of regional and local farmers....not Monsanto-type umbrellas for profit...that could be SO different.
A lot of conventional growers have experimented or allocated small plots to organic production. That has helped (slowly) improve conventional production as these growers apply the subset of organic practices which are actually more efficient to their conventional crops.
On pests... Organic doesn't provide any silver bullets, but there are some techniques in there which do work well in conjunction with conventional methods. Though being able to use strong chemical pesticides when those organic methods fail is pretty important too. Integrated pest management (IPM) has been a thing longer than organic has.
I don’t innately oppose GMOs because I don’t believe they are necessarily dangerous. In fact I strongly believe that GM humans and wildlife are an inevitability, and I think it will help eliminate a wide array of biological problems. My opinion is rooted in the opposition of agroindustry, which generally favors monocultures. While efficient, I think this only enables the continuation of ecological degredation already present. Secondly I think it depends on how you define ‘overpopulation’. We are able to raise the carrying capacity but are humans able to sustain a global society with that many people? Will rights be infringed if certain groups are seen as too numerous? Will class disparity tear a rift in society? Will ecosystems be so damaged by luxury industries and agriculture that they are unable to react to stochastic events? Or will these previously fruitful ecosystems become damaged beyond use? Will an extinction event (often called the Sixth Mass Extinction) trigger a cascade effect where most species we know today are gone? Undoubtedly history is full of tragedies and hardships; it seems we’ve only hit the tip of the iceberg, and the human sacrifice that could be required is sobering. So a population collapse is still possible, it’s always possible; and it’s possible that there may be a problem we can’t solve or mitigate or remediate. So in that way I support two things: like Hawkins said, we need to become a space fairing species like now; and two earth should be viewed as a heritage site and genetic library for transpermic endeavors. While I realize that’s ‘far away thinking’ I think it’s important; I have a 10 year plan, but I also have a plan for tomorrow too.
GMOs are neither safe nor unsafe. It's like saying "all chemicals are safe" or "all chemicals are unsafe". Just as some are safe, some are unsafe. We only know which are safe through extensive testing. We really need to change the dialog and stop irresponsibly spreading these generalizations.
Well said.
Growing two or more plants alongside each other impacts crop density, yield, and the ease and use of machinery for tending them. The biggest issue with monocultures is that they leach the same nutrients from the soil season after season, while different crops might have different nutrient needs and allow the soil to replenish. This issue is just as easily addressed by crop rotation and has little to do with organic farming vs GMO. You can rotate GMO crops, too. This is more readily addressed via discussion of cash crops and staples, where it makes good business sense, at least in the short run, to grow as much of a high-margin crop as possible, or to grow as much of a calorie-dense crop as possible (feeding the world). Again, neither is specifically relevant or even exclusive to GMO vs Organic.
I don't understand why monocultures enable ecological degradation , monocultures increase yield per unit of land and so that means you need less land . In this way it seems to be that monocultures are more environmentally friendly. If your worried about soil degradation that can be solved with crop rotation witch is something that many large agricultural corporations practice. You should really go after organic farms, because its already been established that they use vastly more land than their industrial counterparts
Interesting perspective. If we were not overpopulated, would "organic farming" be enough to feed the world? This organism has about filled it's test tube and is running out of nutrients with increased waste toxins in the mix.
Although I agree with a lot of things in this video, one thing that should've been mentioned is that exposure to Glyfosate has been liked to cancer. Don't worry, it's not consumers who end up getting cancer, it's mostly local communities close to the plantations, which get their water supplies contaminated.
By linked do you mean correlated?
As has bacon, and a lot of other things.
I wasn’t morally disgusted by the non-procreating siblings engaging in intercourse, but I also watch anime so I might be primed differently.
I read that the moment he started talking about siblings fuckin
Same here and in my opinion if science can ever eliminate the risk of birth defects then I would have no problems with it even if they wanted to have children long as it is truly consensual and they are of age.
We got a destiny fan folks
Exactly 69 likes on this comment. Good work everyone!
Yeah I have no problem, I wont but there's really nothing wrong.
I'd watched a bunch of your videos before clicking subscribe, but this one pushed me over the edge. Great work.
The algorithms crush your sub count and views, truly sad. This channel is a jewel. Thank you for the great content. You deserve more.
2017 was 6 years ago? Man, I thought I was young, but now, I know better.
I didnt know you watched Kurzgezagt and scishow too :)
Everyone in the right mind would
I can agree with most of this (I have some background in Agriculture) but the past where you hint that natural pesticides are pretty much the same thing is just wrong. The health risks of Monsanto sprays vs the use of sulfur powder, arsenic (which natural breaks down), or lady bugs is a clear difference when you look at health/environmental impacts.
I've been a HUGE fan of GMOs since high school. It's hilarious to see my sister/ friends spend half their paychecks at Wholefoods 🙄
Geez, I wish I found this video back when I was making a speech about GMOs a couple of months back. Very good work, I'm always glad to see people properly discussing and informing the public about genetic modification.
I've heard the same discussion about an incestual relationship on birth control. Only the least thoughtful people gave the, "It's wrong, but I don't know why," answer. The real answer is that a familial relationship is something important to humans. Sexual relationships are important too. Combining them violates them both. It's not just disgust for disgust's sake.
The problem is, a lot of people don't teach why things are wrong. For a highly Christian country, there is a clear Biblical precident that it is wrong, but parents don't teach that. They just say, "It's wrong" without taking their kids to the doctrine that teaches why it is wrong.
This channel is really interesting, ive been surprised by a lot of what you've said, i'm just about to go into 9th grade, and ive been taught about the dangers of GMOs and that of overpopulation, learning that some of these things are straight up incorrect makes you wonder what else you've learned that is just wrong that we trust because we learned it in school, i wish i could attach the the more you know video thingamabobber.
Glad I came across your channel.
I truly appreciate my paradigm challenged.
My mother refuses to buy food that actively advertises that it's GMO free.
I know a great deal about the hard science and smaller details of GMOs thanks to my agriculture class, but this was very helpful for seeing the bigger picture.
My guy all I have to say is I stumbled upon your channel a few weeks ago and just have been devouring your videos - they are awesome. Keep it up!
The problem is not the genetic modification of food, it is the extreme amounts of pesticides (often proven carcinogens) required to grow GMOs, as well as reduction in soil quality due to the monoculture nature of growing them. The food itself is probably fine.
Your videos are really great to watch. And I am amazed that after watching tons of them, this is the first one where I disagree with you on some points. Great work man.
Im watching a video about "unnatural stuff is ew" that has been fired around the globe, on a device that's flashing lights into my face, makes a spool vibrate, with energy produced either from burning dinosaurs or splitting atoms.
#Natural
Dinosaurs haven't had enough time to become fossil fuels, we're still using old ferns from before animals existed.
Great video, brilliant content and awesome explanation !! But the blast effect after the 12 minute mark gave me a heart attack :(
Provided the sibling scenario unfolds exactly as stated (no kids). I don't know if i could tell them 'no'. It'd creep me the hell out, and I'd feel deeply uncomfortable in either of their presence, let alone both, eeugh. That said, my moral framework (tldr, don't intentionally or negligently hurt anybody and you're good) precludes me trying to stop them. I'd probably subtly avoid them, but i wouldn't want bad for them. It comes down to sovereignty over ones own body, to me. Don't dump anthrax in the ocean, keep to the Paris agreement, otherwise it's none of my business.
Still though, ew.
Thanks for the "there is no over population problem." I've been saying that for decades, I've only heard it from a few sources.
The logic never made sense when you look at how much food is thrown away. We have a food distribution problem.
Depends on your definition of "too many people"
Call me selfish, but I think the housing issue is a result of too many people.
@@Jabberwockybird The housing issue is more of a result of circumstances and greed. Everyone decided at the same time that they wanted a house so it became an issue. There is also the fact that people want to live within a certain distance of certain cities, making that real estate more in-demand and since it's limited, more expensive.
The problem with GMOs isn’t that they are bad for you or anything, it’s that companies can own them, negating the “feed the world” benefit.
Well of course, people have to make money in some way or another. And besides the people worked to create the organism so in all fairness it should be theirs.
Even patents expire. And besides, normal corn/soy/etc already exists AND IT ISN'T FEEDING THE WORLD. Buying seeds that grow in your desert or wherever is preferable to free seeds that don't grow.
"Feed the world" isn't the motivation, its "charge the world" and far too often, "monopolise and control the world." The argument that it costs too much if companies can't patent food is fallacious when "The Thought Emporium" TH-cam channel can do it in a garage with things bought from eBay.
then your against patents not GMO's. Patents are necessary to an extent so that its profitable to come up with new tech but at a certain point they just create monopolies
@@Marixchatt Oh my fucking god the economy should be at our service not the other way around. Millions of farmer shouldn't surfer for a few rich fucks.
You can say what you want, the problem starts where a company is allowed to patent a plant and this plant is contaminating real crops that have been cultivated by farmers for ages and these crops then fall under this patent. it's just sick...
When people start talking about how “organic” will solve all our problems
“If it were that simple”
Big_Brain_Kai’sa_Main it’s almost never “that simple”...I hate that, you got it
I can't say I've ever seen someone say "organic will solve all our problems" but people sure like creating that strawman to knock down.
The real issue is the best known GMO's are made by Monsanto, a company with a horrific record of not seeming to care about the consequences, hiding studies that make them look bad, and suing everyone who opposes them ... Not the most trustworthy of companies who have gone out of their way to cover up any issues (and they don't want to feed the world )
Other corporations have a much better record, and no-one seems to be worried about them or their products ...
Nice, carrots are orange because of us (dutch people) XD. Great video. And btw the past dutch flag was "orange white blue" and now its "red white blue", but when they changed the carrots color the flag was probably the orange one. Again great video.
Reni Ellents can y’all make some red carrots then kthxbye
Great video man, I'm a biotech major and I have to clear up these types of questions a whole lot. I'll send them your way to help them see the bigger picture!
I work for a pest control company and we offer an option to use organic pesticides instead of synthetic. The thing is the active ingredient on both pesticide is the same, the only difference is one comes out of a flower and costs more, and the other is synthesized in a lab. There are other difference in the method of application and dilution rates. But chances are the organic food you get at the grocery store has the exact same pesticide on it as the non organic food. You're literally paying more for a label.
The issue I have with GM crops, particularly "Round-up ready" crops is it allows for rampant overuse of herbicides & pesticides which wreak havoc on the rest of the environment. My question is always "genetically modified for what?" and the answer to that question is seldom readily available. The GM food industry needs more transparency if it wants to gain the public's trust.
ShaVaughn, you say the issue you have with GM crops is particularly with "Round-up ready" crops is it allows for rampant overuse of herbicides & pesticides. OK, but no other GM crop leads to any increase in any agricultural chemical, and most of them lead to a large decrease in chemical use. So you should perhaps be praising all the other GM crops.
But there's also another side of the story for glyphosate. Before there were any GMO crops, the world's most used herbicide was atrazine. The single biggest reason it was used so much is that corn is naturally immune to atrazine, so it was sprayed on cornfields to kill weeds, exactly as corn farmers now do with GMO corn and glyphosate. There are two reasons why a switch from atrazine to glyphosate is a good thing. First, it is dozens of times more toxic than glyphosate. Second, glyphosate is sticky and doesn't move freely through soil, whereas atrazine flows right into aquifers and into other bodies of water. In fact, the EU regulators have decided that there is no practical way to use atrazine safely. Now I anticipate that you will say that replacing one herbicide by another is not enough - you want them gone. But can you at least recognize that the GMO herbicide tolerance has been of some benefit in making a bad practice somewhat better?
I have another comment. You used the word "rampant". I've seen other people comment on farmers "dousing" or "drowning" the crops in Roundup. Sometimes words like that get in the way of clear thinking. A typical rate of application of Roundup would be about a quart per acre. That's a lot more like misting than dousing. "Rampant" suggests a farmer using Roundup like an insane person. The farmer is sensitive to the cost, if nothing else. Please try to keep your language suitable for reasoned logic, not for stirring up passions that get in the way of the truth.
@@charlesmrader harm reduction is certainly better than unchecked harm.
Now, 4 years later, the Capitol building gets stormed by mutant zombies.
OMG. I gave this comment a like before realizing it was my own comment from a year ago.
I've been binging your videos and they cover topics I wouldn't search for but, I will now
thank you for the earrape
The exact fuckn moment :/
Cool to see Jonathan hiadt in your sources, I really love his lectures!
I love your videos but often your the titles to your videos do not draw my attention. I have skipped over this video for the longest time because of the weird title. Now that I watched it I loved it and love he information in it.
This made me remember the episode Penn & Teller's Bullshit did on this very subject with much of the same points years and years ago. Man, that show was awesome.
It's good that there are YT channels like this that educate people like that show did with me in its time.
I refuse to eat anything that touts it's self as "organic". I always ask for GMO food because it's tastier and cheaper.
Peter Peterson And better for the environment
Also will have more nutrients
Super good one man. Seriously, probably the best program on YT
Over population is a thing anywhere the region can no longer support the population existing on it, whether that's due to a lack of infrastructure, food, water, or other resources. It's not a hard cap, and yes, the cap can be increased through development, better crop growing methods, water purification systems, transportation of food into dangerous areas, and so on, but until these methods are put in place to up the cap, overpopulation absolutely exists.
Australia for instance is nearing its population cap due to so much of our land being in drought, a severe lack of infrastructure into the desert to make it arable, fracking poisoning a great deal of water, our population piling into cities, and a government who doesn't want to build the infrastructure necessary to support the growth of the population.
The population cap experts talk about isnt because the earth cant support anymore that is the point when the world as a whole would be developed enough that most people arnt interested in kids. You know what people who have lots of money to spend usually dont want to do? raise kids.
love the video. however, I do believe we will still face a food crisis in the future if agriculture doesn't make some change, due to soil degradation. I believe the key will be to remove the love we have for our lawns, and return to personal gardens where possible to help supply. not to say everyone has the option, but there are many who could who do not (myself included, although I rent)
Overpopulation is not only a question of food
He never said that. He also said that we had to help developing countries to advance healthcare and therefore stable at 10-15 billion people
You're talking about space, aren't you? It's pretty simple for that...
GO TO DIFFERENT PLANETS ALREADY
@@SpiralingUniverses Thats not a solution, thats just exporting the problem to other planets
Physical disgust ... " What I feel when I look in the mirror (9:17)" LOL. You got jokes. Love your TH-cam videos. Always great to watch, gain knowledge and have a laugh while I'm at it. Keep up the great work.
What do you mean there's no GMO animal food for sale??? I've been eating knockout mice for years!!! You'll never find a more expensive delicacy than a $5,000 mouse. I mean it tastes like shit because of the tumors but so do most expensive delicacies.
Even with GMO‘s millions of people go hungry each day. I thought for sure you would talk about or mention indoor farming. I continue to enjoy your videos and share them. Nice work!
All I can say here is "Golden Rice" it's saving lives
WOW!
Things have sure changed since this video was made.
My spouse and I like the videos put on this channel but we really think it's time for an updated "Frankenfood" episode.
Are you up to the task?!
What’s changed in regards to this topic?
There are two issues you don't address.
1. The Roundup resistant GMO's encourage over use which is destructive of the environment because of the effect on other plantlife.
2. The effect of GMO seeds which are designed to produce infertile seeds so that 3rd world farmers are forced to buy seeds every year.
Both of these whilst not objections to GMO's per say they are issues which need to be addressed before GMO's can be seen as the panacea they potentially can be. As you allude to in video Monsanto has a lot to answer for when it comes to giving GMO's a bad name.
> The effect of GMO seeds which are designed to produce infertile seeds so that 3rd world farmers are forced to buy seeds every year.
Well, GMO seeds are just one more optional tool in the large array of those available for farming Farmers can choose between (asspull numbers) buying GMO seeds for $100 and growing enough produce to sell for $1000 and just growing non-GMO produce and selling for $500. The same way a century ago farmers could choose between buying a shovel for $10 and growing enough food to sell for $100 and digging the field with their hands and growing enough to sell for $20. GMO seeds are no different than shovels in this respect.
Thats assuming they have $100 dollars and can afford to spend it, whereas with fertile seeds they only need to buy an initial batch of seeds. You seem to forget these are subsistance farmers.
Subsistence farmers aren't the ones buying the GMO seeds. Not only are they out of reach monetarily (not only the seeds themselves, but also additional required components like glyphosate), but also there'd be no point, since at those scales you won't see the benefits of GMO (such as being able to farm very densely or use industrial-level pesticides).
I would suggest you do some research before making generalised comments like this. Specifically start with the effects of GMO cotton seeds on Indian farmers. As a general point the fact that on smaller scales the full benefit of GMO will not be seen doesn't prevent dealers selling the seeds on the promise that it will.
1. ''The Roundup resistant GMO's encourage over use which is destructive of the environment because of the effect on other plantlife.'' Roundup is actually more environmentally friendly than a lot of other common herbicides, it binds more tightly to soil thus preventing run off and has a relatively short half life with the decomposition products being harmless. Furthermore, it shifts the problem - other herbicides would then be used in place of RU. Ofc that doesn't mean even better alternatives shouldn't be looked for, everything can be improved.
2. '2. The effect of GMO seeds which are designed to produce infertile seeds so that 3rd world farmers are forced to buy seeds every year.' - Thats a bit of a non point and also slightly misleading. Firstly with cash crops, you generally buy new seeds anyways to prevent genetic drift changing the qualities of the crop. 'Terminator seeds' is what you are alluding too, a technology that while exists on paper doesn't actually exist in real life as Monsanto didn't like the ethical challenge it would pose (I mean you can spin that either way). Lastly a lot of the litigation around using patented seeds comes from the actual farmers themselves - you pay to get a better yield, so why should your neighbour get to use the seeds that spilled over onto his land and reap the benefits that you paid for giving him the edge.
something makes me think many that are against GMO are also against getting vaccinated
The one quote I detest the most "playing god"
Caye Daws Tough sell for a atheist
We’d do a far better bloody job that they ever did
I got a general bone to pick.
Everytime GMOs come up, people talk about dumb fears, by arguably dumb people.
Few bring up any intelligent dissent.
Like the legitimate concerns of invasive "super"weeds that develop because of excessive use of the pesticides that go with the pesticide resistant crops.
Or how monocropping with these high yield crops seriously depletes the soil, and pumping ammonia into the ground to compensate for the lack of nutrients, is not exactly good for the environment. Patenting seeds, and fining small farmers who don't want to keep buying new seeds from these large businesses. (I didn't say corporation to suppress people's gag reflex.)
Also, sure GMOs help feed the world, but apparently we throw away 40% of the food we produce.
I think there's a middle ground between fear mongering and soothsaying where we can objectively and critically look at how the entire business and practice affects the world, environmentally and economically. Perhaps the benefits outweigh the risks, but I feel confident that we could likely do it better if we stopped bickering about the dumb stuff.
Thems just me thoughts.
First half of video: a vidoe debunking the myths about GMOs
Second half: SWEET HOME ALABAMA
Where is the debunking part? He only explains, what the official goals of GMOs are, not less, but also not more.
Pesticides are a blanket term for all insecticides (controls bugs), Herbicides (controls plants), fungicides (controls fungi), Rodenticides (controls rodents), Bactericides (controls bacteria), and Larvicides (controls bacteria). Roundup ready just makes the crop resistant to Roundup and a few other herbicides. Other than that, great video.
Lot in this, and I did “like.” I’m an industrial chemist and could endorse the video because it very compactly covers a lot pretty well. I think you were a little dismissive or organic and you certainly are not right about taste, unless it the same variety grown with similar intensity. By an heirloom tomato and one at Safeway- not too tough to tell. But I’ll give you its more about the kind and ripeness than the use of fertilizer. I also think your a little unfair about organic and chemicals. Sure they both have chemicals as we and food is all chemicals. But they have less persistent bioacculative toxins - not a made up thing. Why I still like your discussion is these technologies are not evil, they are tools, they are a means to an end they may not be getting enough respect. I am reading on the the issue that we can’t feed the world with organic food, I still don’t have an answer. But, I think there is a good case that conventional agriculture’s problems may prove it also can’t feed the world due to soil erosion. Of course, that’s more than just chemicals its culture and mechanization.
On the GMO’s its not well understood the resistance to GMO’s is mostly political and in the sciences its more accepted for mostly you reasons. I tell people this: GMO’s are when natural chemicals get into unnatural place or levels. To get unnatural chemicals into unnatural places is the realm of Chemistry (me). As a species we don‘t have a great record here - be careful dismissing the concerns, we can make a mess of things. Below is asked what’s happening to science: many answers but one thing for sure we see a tendency for short term thinking and hyper-politicization of everything. So we begun to loose faith in institutions. We also have a clear “what have you done for me lately problem.” Take vaccines, they haven’t seen the morbidity of the past, so a small worry that probably doesn’t exist is a big deal. It’s almost like we need a crisis to be civil again.
Thank you. There is glyphosate in most American mother's breast milk. Bioaccumulative is important.
I haven't agreed with every position you've taken, but I credit you with being a smart guy. I wish we were neighbors. As for GMOs', I agree with you. Aside from the points you made, there's this: though it's ability to do so is limited (poisons will negatively impact you), your body is good at utilizing from food only that which is useful. The rest exits. I doubt that any GMO will negatively impact a body. As long as your body is getting the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, and other molecules that it needs, does it matter how they were produced? What can be a more artificial source of protein and vitamins than a "power bar?" Yet we don't fear them.
You said that carrots were originally purple, but purple is a figment of our imagination 🤔
what? colors arent just made up by our brains... colors depend on their wavelength of light. some animals see colors differently because their eyes are different, but the light wavelength is the same all the time.
Purple and pink don't exist. It is just a replacement for the colors we can't see.
Man, he use to speak in such a neutral tone back in the day.
I'm playing Dark Souls 3 along with your videos so maybe I missed something...but I'm pretty sure I JUST watched a video where you said that purple doesn't occur in nature.
Well, they aren't *really* purple. More of a blueish red.
You haven't touched on engineering plants to be sterile (or seed-less) and its possible consequences (cloning effectively reduces the genetic diversity of crops). The permaculture movement regularly says that their methods provide even higher yelds than modern industrialized farming.
Monsanto's GMO crops are a solution (chemical pesticide resistance) to a bad solution(chemical pesticides) to a problem (pests). I'd rather have a better solution to the pest problem. It's the pesticides that I want to stay clear of, not necessarily the GMO aspect - though I have concerns with that too.
You should make a separate video on incest, especially how it's being popularized by anime and Game of Thrones.
That moral disgust theory seem's like an argument against GMO's tbh
@@GuillieDaShogun Depends by what you mean by unfuckable. Not all sisters are ugly. And not all sisters are imoutos.
And porn. Which I do not understand.
@@chriswalker5061 Why, it's a pretty simple concept (Make-pp-hard videos)
A huge point people seem to overlook: Due to the use of herbicides, we no longer use tillage as a form of weed control. Tillage caused the dust bowl. If we didn't have herbicides and GMOs, it would be the 30s all over again. Tillage also uses an excessive amount of fuel. The cost of production and carbon emissions would rise exponentially.
purple carrots? eeeeewwww
Actually that taste as good as regular carrots and in some cases better a classic case of not judging a book by its cover.
r/whoosh
Orgánic farming has been evolving too. Science is Not going only one direction, neither should we. Let us be open minded and keep researchers and Big business responsible, but let us not fear the future. We GOT this. Just as long we keep ourselves informed. We need TH-cam to grow even more, as youtubers hold each other accountable. Soon this is Where we Will get the news and truth, and some of us, no a lot of us - already are. I Trust this channel, i would never think that the man behind is omnipotent, so keep looking at all of them, but be aware of those that try to elicit an emotional response, guard your heart with your mind, so your mind be less clouded.
Quality content, you're one of my favorite smart youtube channels to watch (along with Kurzgesagt, check them out).
I usually agree with you, but this topic is really unsettling to me. I'm european (Polish if anyone cares) and my tribe is quite conservative.
Well, majority is
What about Monsanto convincing EFSA to increase Round-up limits in food?
What about (overall) more cancer in the world?
I heard once that if we cut out wheat (which is super-modified, chemically-fertilized etc. novadays) from our diet we won't get half of civilization diseases (can't proof if it's true tough).
This topic is very important to be because I try to stay "natural" but at the same time I try to be as objective as it gets to be fair to everybody.
And I want humans to develop, but GMO seems just disgusting to me in worst way-like... pathetic. Pathetic that we as humans have to do disgusting things ith our food to survive..
I know that's pretty old video to have a conversation under but.. here I am. Dont have reddit :{
The EFSA has accepted the safety of glyphosate. There are FEWER cancers in 1st world nations, not more, and that is not in any way directly connected to foods, you completely ignored the more likely suspects like air and water pollution which are proven to be carcinogenic in many cases. The very concept of 'natural' is a joke now. There is no longer an accurate definition for that word, especially when applied to foods. What is disgusting about using a common mustard plant to derive cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli, brussels sprouts, kale and turnips from? We did that for our benefit and new GMOs continue in that vein while dealing with increasing challenges to farmers from global warming and rising populations. You have no logical legitimate basis for your objections.
Really well research video. And a bit about morral disgust is great.
I am a Danish student in the farming industry. I have no problems with your explanation of GMO's and the psycholgy part, But you completely missed the purpose of organic farming. I understand that this topic is very hard to research properly because sadly there is so much misinformation on the topic.
Organic farming is about growing crops in a more sustainable way. Conventional farmers have for the last century, exhausted their fields, by growing huge monoculture fields, just added the fertilizer they needed and then harvesting everything. all that fertilizer the plants have "eaten" is now, not on the fields but in the harvested crop. next year the field has a lower amount of fertilizer in the soil, so they add more and this cycle continues. The next question is where does all this magic fertilizer come from? Most often it comes from India and China, where the factories are not quite built with the environment in mind. it is also an environmental problem locally where the fertilizer is applied, it usually ends up in a nearby river or lake and that's really bad.
Organic farming is about fixing all these all these problems mentioned above (and many more) to make farming more sustainable. I would say separating organic farming with GMO's are a political choice, because of what you said about moral disgust and maybe also because GMO's are made with conventional farming in mind.
So what I'm saying is please don't just dismiss all that Organic farming has accomplished, just because it is not a GMO. I really like your channel in general, but this video made my blood boil because you completely dismissed organic farming, without looking at the big picture.
There is nothing wrong with Organic farming per se, however like GMO the term is fairly useless. There are plenty of environmentally destructive chemicals that fit the name of 'organic', and it still suffers from a low yield compared to conventional farming - something that I think will hold it back even more so as global consumption increases (unless there is a dramatic change in the way developed nations supply and consume produce). I am not saying that conventional farming is environmentally better or does not changing however.
In my eyes, most of the problems revolve around the meat industry and the global consumption of meat. 1 kg of meat needs a crazy amount of food and water. so if everyone was vegans (this is utopia, i know), then we could easily feed everyone (with a surplus) with farmland we have now.
And I know its impossible to a 100 % organic (at the moment at least) but that doesn't mean shouldn't try....
Or you just eat meat on special occations not every single day like many people do nowadays...
I mean if you slaughter some goats when you have a party but then don't eat meat for weeks or months again then it's pretty minimal impact and maybe even more effective since you'd only use non arable land for grazing anyway
Your definition of orgnic farming differs from the common vernacular. At least here in the US.
No, it doesn't.
I applaud you pointing out the conflation of transgenic and bred or selected/foods. There still are several ecological, economic and social arguments against corporate-controlled transgenic crops, particularly in so far as they are currently designed for profit-focused, but ultimately unsustainable (because of the externalities) forms of industrial agriculture. Genetic engineering will definitely play a part in future (resilient) food systems, but I don't think anything in the current market is leading us where we need to be.
Also as I side note, the global divide between "conventional" and "organic" is not as stark as it appears. Artificial inputs are expensive. Last time I checked, roughly half of global agricultural nitrogen inputs are non-synthetic, especially in poorer regions. Considering the high energy costs of artificial nitrogen fixation, reusing cheap nitrogen (including human waste) will always be an important input. It ultimately boils down to best practices.
GMOs are neither safe nor unsafe. It's like saying "all chemicals are safe" or "all chemicals are unsafe". Just as some are safe, some are unsafe. We only know which are safe through extensive testing. We really need to change the dialog and stop irresponsibly spreading these generalizations.
My concern with GMOs is that I don't trust companies to sufficiently test for safety and regulators are corrupt.
@@jayyyzeee6409 It's funny you say that, because it's FDA who regulates what goes to the market, not the companies. The companies only do their best to cope with the regulation. Now if you doubt the credibility of FDA, then why don't you stop taking any medications and stop buying food at all? Grow your own vegetables and herbs in your backyard seem to be safe?
@@angelkilier U.S. federal protection agencies are a joke. They serve the industries they're supposed to be regulating, not the citizens they're supposed to be protecting. I do the best I can to minimize the risks, and yes, I do grow some of my own food at least.
@@jayyyzeee6409 However you perceive this, there's no difference in the way they regulate medicines and non-GMO foods (not saying they do it perfectly) and GMO food. If any, that is it's more strict on GMO foods. There is no reason to just bring up how GMO foods are tested and as if it's any different from other foods. They all come from big corporations after all.
@@angelkilier There would be no reason to talk about testing legacy foods since they've been consumed for many decades or centuries. I'm bringing up testing of GMO foods since unlike legacy foods, there's no reason to assume GMO foods are safe.
You should do a segment on food waste, and expiration dates.
Good work KnowingBetter keep it up
Well said! I personal study Bioengineering. On this topic, most of time we /scientists blame ourselves for not informed enough to the public. However, I think the fear of GMO is caused by 1: lack of knowledge 2: fear of unknown 3: selfish and ignorant.
Thing is, even though my gut reaction to incest is to be grossed out by it, I’m willing to accept incest in the context that you brought up (especially if they are family that met as adults, such as the case with some adopted people).
I still take issue if they were raised as siblings. Not because it’s gross (though it is), but because a lot of victims of incest were groomed by their elders to think it’s normal. So if they wait until they are if legal age to bump uglies, does that make it any less exploitative? I don’t think so. I think it all depends on the context.
Personally I’m against GM crops that are owned and copyrighted/patented by large corporations. There have been small farmers that have had their crops unintentionally cross-pollinated with GM crops, specifically from Monsanto, and they had their crops seized due to copyright/patent infringement. GMO’s are a good thing inherently, but corporate manipulation and greed has corrupted the concept. It commodifies human survival
The internet has completely desensitized me to moral disgust. My legit reaction to the incest thing was, "Who cares, if no one's gonna get hurt, it doesn't matter."
Same.
Albeit organic farming not being able to feed the planet, that is also only due to the massive amounts of land with truly minimal food gain from the cattle/pig/chicken markets. If each of them were replaced, acre by acre, the vegetable/agro fields would produce ten times the weight of what the meat producing land would make. Outside of that, I definitely feel what you mean. Thanks for another informative video
you're being paid by Monsanto!
ok troglodyte
😂
In the general sense of "genetic modification" you start with, which includes selective breeding, all of our food today, plant or animal, is extremely modified from its original state. You may have seen a few interesting examples like tiny wild corn cobs or bananas with large seeds, but the reality is that _every_ food is changed substantially from its wild variety, sometimes much more than you would think possible.
Sorry but overpopulation IS a thing!
Of course we can feed 12 billions people easily, I'm not denieing this point.
But we have to look further than food. Especially if we want every country to have a decent standard font living, we have to look at resources, and the environnement (especially biodiversity).
If we use GMO, then we use pesticides and we can feed the world. But we also kill a lot of insects in the making...
So more human means less wildlife. More humans means more use of ressources like rare earth element or oil, and that destroy the environment.
There is a thing called the eart overshoot day. It is that day when we start using the reserves of the earth because we're done consuming what it produced naturally over one year. It first appeared in the late 80s when the global population was 5 billions.
Today it is in august and we are almost 8 billions.
So a good manageable population is 5 billions. And if we want all countries to have good standard of living, maybe 3 billions top.
So again, saying overpopulation is not a thing is true if we only talk about feeding everyone. But if we loin at the global picture, the wildlife, the ressources, the way we live... we would need 2 earths to satisfy our global needs on the long run... we are already in a situation of overpopulation.
The only durable solutions would be reducing the population, Or, having 10 billions people with the sale standar living as today India
m.th-cam.com/video/VOMWzjrRiBg/w-d-xo.html
Here a video which resume in a good way I think, what the challenge is
Yes, too much focus on "is it bad for me" rather than the big picture and avoiding costs to the future.
You do understand that herbicides and pesticides have been around almost as long as agriculture, right? GMOs allow farmers to make use of certain pesticides that could be more environmentally friendly, but would otherwise kill the staple crop. Breeding/modifying a staple to be resistant to a safer (for the rest of the environment) is beneficial.
Example time:
I want to grow corn. Corn is killed by chemical A, which breaks down quickly and has a small effect on local ecosystems as runoff.
Chemical B is safe for corn, but 2x more toxic to the environment (those poor frogs) and takes longer to break down, so it builds up over time, which amplifies its negative affects.
A GMO corn product is released, allowing me to use the safer chemical A AND increase my yields simultaneously.
You may have moral disgust, but ethically, the GMO is the wiser choice, especially considering other GMOs permit reduced water usage or other positive/environmentally friendly traits.
I think GEOs are necessary however a point I think you need to point out further is Monsanto crops. Engineering plants resilient to pesticides rather then engineering them to be more resilient to weeds and insects is done out of greed instead of altruism. That in itself isn't illegal however their pesticides and fertilizers have lead to jeopardizing insect populations and has led to putrification of many bodies of water. GEOs are the technology that will feed the world however we must make sure that the byproducts of their production are less detrimental. This will require GEOs focused on self production of biologically produced pesticides to prevent the detriment of current crop treatments.